Court upholds revisional authority's jurisdiction under VAT laws, emphasizes statutory remedies, directs petitioner to Tribunal. Interim order stays demands.

The Court upheld the revisional authority's jurisdiction under VAT laws, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to exhaust statutory remedies before challenging the authority's power. Despite the withdrawal of the appeal, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the Tribunal within a month for further action. The Court acknowledged the interim order staying demands and instructed the Tribunal to address any application promptly. It clarified that the order did not express any opinion on the appeal's merits or related interim orders, leading to the disposal of the writ petition.

---

---

Issues involved: Jurisdiction of revisional authority u/s VAT laws, withdrawal of appeal by petitioner, challenge to power of revisional authority, statutory remedies available to petitioner.

Jurisdiction of revisional authority u/s VAT laws: The petitioner challenged a revisional notice issued by the Commissioner VAT, raising concerns about the Commissioner's power. The Court referred to a Full Bench decision confirming the Commissioner's authority. The revisional authority rejected the petitioner's contentions and made an order on merits, prompting the petitioner to approach the VAT Tribunal while a writ petition was pending. The Court held that the petitioner should exhaust other statutory remedies before challenging the revisional authority's power.

Withdrawal of appeal by petitioner: Despite withdrawing the appeal, the Court emphasized that this action does not compel it to entertain an amendment application to examine the merits of the revisional authorities, especially when statutory remedies are available. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the Tribunal within a month either with a fresh appeal or an application for revival of the withdrawn appeals.

Challenge to power of revisional authority: The Court acknowledged the petitioner's interim order staying the demands following the revisional order. It ruled that the interim order should continue until the appeal is filed. The Tribunal was instructed to consider any application for an interim order in accordance with the law and dispose of it promptly.

Statutory remedies available to petitioner: The Court highlighted that the petitioner must exhaust all statutory remedies before challenging the revisional authority's power. It clarified that the order does not express any opinion on the merits of the appeal or the interim order related to the revisional order. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

---